I am a professor and endowed professor at the University of Houston where I founded and direct the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture and head the graduate program in space architecture. My background deals extensively with research, planning and design of habitats, structures and other support systems for applications in space and extreme environments on Earth. I have recently written a new book titled "Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax". It can be previewed and ordered at www.climateofcorruption.com. Additional information about my book and views can be found on my YouTube address: http://www.youtube.com/climateofcorruption.

During a 2008 CBS60 Minutes interview, Al Gore, who was launching a major global warming crisis advertising campaign at the time, responded to a question by Leslie Stahl about skeptics stating, “I think those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view. They’re almost like the ones who still believe that the Moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat.” So wouldn’t you expect that some of those people who actually witnessed the Earth from orbit and walked on the Moon… those “flat-Earthers” … to know better than to question the scientific basis for his alarmist climate claims? Well, apparently, this just isn’t the case.

Seven Apollo astronauts, along with two former NASA Johnson Space Center directors and several former senior management-level technical experts, have recently lodged formal complaints to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, Jr. regarding the dismal and embarrassing state of the agency’s climate science programs. These charges were presented in two separate letters that were hand-delivered, then publicly released.

The first letter, dated April 10, admonished the agency for its role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change, while neglecting basic empirical evidence that calls the theory into question. The group also charged that NASA in general, and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in particular, has failed to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change, and is relying too heavily upon complex climate models that have proven to be scientifically inadequate for climate predictions. It specifically asked that GISS, headed by Dr. James Hansen, be required to “refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites.”

The second letter, dated May 11, took issue with formal statements by NASA Chief Scientist Dr. Waleed Abdalati, which contradicted a response he had made to the first letter that: “As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue ‘claims’ about research findings.” Yet only eight days later, Abdalati testified at a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing that the sea level was projected to rise between 0.2 meters and 2 meters within the next 87 years. He said that the lower ranges were less likely, and that “…the highest values are based on warmest of the temperature scenarios commonly considered for the remainder of the 21stcentury.” He added: “The consequences of a 1 meter rise in sea level by the end of this century would be very significant in terms of human well-being and economics, and potentially global socio-political stability.”

The second letter from NASA retirees observed that the range of Abdalati’s conclusion is “astounding”, and “…if hard data points to a probable rise, it should be stated with its probability. Can you imagine one of your predecessors, Dr. Thomas Paine, declaring, ‘Our Apollo 11 Lunar Lander’s target is the sea of Tranquility [in the Moon’s equatorial region], but we may make final descent within a range that included Crater Clavius [near the South Pole]?’” The letter then urged Administrator Bolden to make a commitment to equal or exceed, “…the agency’s reputation for careful reliance upon rigorous science.” It asked him to “Join us, please, in encouraging your colleagues to achieve the level of excellence the world has come to expect from America’s National Aeronautics Administration!” Expressing the need for urgency, the letter ended with: “Waiting is not an option!”

Dr. Abdalati’s Senate testimony included a qualifying statement on a subject that is typically missed or ignored in climate science media reporting and policy deliberations… namely that all those projections are based upon theoretical models that simply cannot be validated or trusted. He admitted, to wit: “The modeling activity is an integrated effort jointly carried out by NASA, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Energy (DOE). NSF also invests in basic observations and process studies that are either directly coordinated with or are complementary to NASA’s activities, and DOE is building dynamical models of Greenland and Antarctica, where future sea level rise projections take advantage of observations provided by NASA and NSF. Through these investments and activities, the scientific community is making progress toward addressing the wild-card of the sea level rise equation, but we are still a ways off from a level of understanding that would allow us to predict future changes accurately [italics added]”.

One signatory of the NASA letters, Dr. Tom Wysmuller, developed polynomial regression algorithms (coding) used by climate scientists and modelers. As he pointed out to me: “Weather and climate comprise the sum total of an almost infinite series of interactive events occurring on a molecular and atomic level. Climate models involve particularly massive large scale approximations, which is why their predictions are less than robust.”

Yes, models are, indeed, still a very long way off from any ability to accurately predict such climate-related changes. Even the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2001 Summary Report for Decision Makers chapter titled Model Evaluation contains this confession: “We fully recognize that many of the evaluation statements we make contain a degree of subjective scientific perception and may contain much ‘community’ or ‘personal’ knowledge. For example, the very choice of model variables and model processes that are investigated are often based upon subjective judgment and experience of the modeling community.”

In that same report, the IPCC further admits: “In climate research and modeling, we should realize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and lead author of 2001 and 2007 IPCC report chapters, has also admitted that IPCC models have failed to duplicate realities. Writing in a 2007 “Predictions of Climate” blog appearing in the science journal Nature.com he stated, “None of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state, and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state”.

Doesn’t that pretty much say it all?

One might imagine that if any organization can be trusted for reliable climate information, it would be NASA, especially the NASA organization named after Dr. Robert H. Goddard who is widely recognized as the “Father of American Rocketry”. Yet it is important to understand that the Goddard Institute for Space Studies relies primarily upon surface (not satellite) data that is mostly supplied by others. And even some top NASA scientists consider the dataset produced by GISS inferior to data provided by two other principal organizations, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climate Data Center Global Historical Climatology Network, and the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU)… home of the famous “ClimateGate” e-mail scandal.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Considering that over 440 Americans have flown into space, 7 is indeed a tiny minority: about the same proportion as there are of climate scientists who reject the consensus view.

It’s also absurd that after Dr. Abdalati gave a projection with a large uncertainly, his critics complain that he doesn’t talk about the uncertainty. Apparently some people just don’t read for content.

You’re also wrong that the differences between NASA/GISS, HADCRU, and NOAA/NCDC are because of “tuning.” They are primarily because of different spatial coverage. NASA/GISS covers 100% of the globe, while the others cover somewhat less. Since the arctic is warming faster than the planet as a whole, those datasets that don’t cover the arctic as well (like HADCRU) show less warming. In other words, NASA is doing it better, and this has recently been confirmed by the BEST project.

I’m sorry to see that you now view legal and legitimate protest of government policies as “shameful”. Perhaps you would feel more at home in communist China, where such views are required of public servants.

Mr. Bell’s apparent background in oil, http://www.forbes.com/profile/larry-bell/, makes his support of the “manufacture a controversy, a la Heartland Institute” a no-brainer.

The majority opinion is on the side that global warming is real and the modern phenomenon that is generally what is referred to by that name is caused by man. Saying otherwise is in the spirit of big tobacco and deregulation of the finance industry.

Typical character assassination from the climate pimps and hos. They are losing the public, which means they are losing the governments, which mean they better push to get $ now because soon the “slush” fund is gonna disappear.

Another Larry Bell column, another steaming pile of BS. Where to start? How about the quote from John Thorn. It happens that someone asked for Gavin Schmidt to respond to it in the comments section at realclimate. [Response: Dr. Theon appears to have retired from NASA in 1994, some 15 years ago. Until yesterday I had never heard of him (despite working with and for NASA for the last 13 years). His insights into both modelling and publicity appear to date from then, rather than any recent events. He was not Hansen's 'boss' (the director of GISS reports to the director of GSFC, who reports to the NASA Administrator). His "some scientists" quote is simply a smear - which scientists? where? what did they do? what data? what manipulation? This kind of thing plays well with Inhofe et al because it appears to add something to the 'debate', but in actual fact there is nothing here. Just vague, unsubstantiated accusations. - gavin]

Hansen’s complaints that he was muzzled and his public statements censored date to the Bush II administration. For those who have forgotten, we’re talking 2001-2009. Theon wouldn’t be in any position to say anything about that. As for Hansen’s predictions: His 1980s models have matched subsequent observations rather closely. Remarkably so given the early stage of the science at the time.

As to the Trenberth quote: Here’s some of the context: “In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. There are a number of assumptions that go into these emissions scenarios. They are intended to cover a range of possible self consistent “story lines” that then provide decision makers with information about which paths might be more desirable. But they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess.

“Even if there were, the projections are based on model results that provide differences of the future climate relative to that today. None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models. There is neither an El Niño sequence…”

Dr. Trenberth was essentially emphasizing that climate models don’t make predictions. They make projections of what will happen under certain scenarios. What happens, for example, if CO2 emissions are cut? Or if they are increased? Bell’s selective quoting tries to turn what is basically a commonplace into a damning admission. Bell counts on his readership being uninformed and incurious.

Great article Larry. You know that you have written a tight and well thought article when the only criticism is that you are secretly a big oil sympathizer.

@keith pickering

you have to be kidding me, Hansen has adjusted the GISS temperature and NASA just did a major revision of the historical temperature database. Regarding the sea level rise Abdalati gave, its wrong. The high sea level rise predictions come from fringe activist scientists like Stephan Rahmstorf. Recently in North Carolina, they passed a bill forcing future sea level predictions to be based off historical data, not bogus computer models where the author can simply tune it to show what they want.

you do realize that there haven’t been any historical comparisons in regards to global warming? Do you not think the fact we are below GAT and average atmopsheric co2 may be quite a discrepancy for global warming theory?

do even know what this means?

What it means is that Gavin Schmidt and company are claiming something the earth has already done before is not being done by the earth this time, but by mankind. So how can below average warming be attributed to mankind? Please explain it to me.

You said that “Dr. Trenberth was essentially emphasizing that climate models don’t make predictions. They make ‘projections’ of what will happen under certain scenarios.”

More specifically, he argued in his 2007 Nature blog that “the IPCC does not make forecasts”, but “instead proffers ‘what if’ projections that correspond to certain emission scenarios”; and then hopes these “projections… will guide policy and decision makers.” He went on to say: ”there are no such predictions [in the IPCC reports] although the projections given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are often treated as such. The distinction is important”.

Armstrong and Green challenged that semantic defense, pointing out that “the word ‘forecast’ and its derivatives occurred 37 times, and ‘predict’ and its derivatives occurred 90 times in the body of Chapter 8” of [the IPCC’s 2007] the Working Group I report”.

Larry Bell – I’ll let Trenberth speak for himself: “So if the science is settled, then what are we planning for and adapting to? A consensus has emerged that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” to quote the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Working Group I Summary for Policy Makers (pdf) and the science is convincing that humans are the cause. Hence mitigation of the problem: stopping or slowing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere is essential. The science is clear in this respect.

“However, the science is not done because we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate. But we need them. Indeed it is an imperative! So the science is just beginning. Beginning, that is, to face up to the challenge of building a climate information system that tracks the current climate and the agents of change, that initializes models and makes predictions, and that provides useful climate information on many time scales regionally and tailored to many sectoral needs.”

I would point out that Trenberth’s 2007 comment is not a “defense.” That’s a propaganda term. He was saying that the models did not have the resolution to make regional predictions. Nor did he “admit” anything. That’s more propaganda weaselling. Compare to: “Larry Bell’s defense is that he is a faculty member at the University of Houston, but he admits to being director of the Sasakawa institute.” See how that works? If you guys really had a case, you would simply present it without resorting to loaded language and to out of context quotes. And two guys actually counted the words “forecast” and “prediction” in a report? What for? Did they put them in context or just count them? Did they get paid for that? LOL.

chocolateboy – A new low in sockpuppetry. Try to just crowd out critical comments by posting lists. Apparently TV weathermen and mechanical engineers are exactly the same thing as climate scientists in your orld. Funny, though, that you can’t link to a single peer reviewed paper that shows any evidence that (1) The world is not getting measurably warmer and (2) that the warming is not caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2. Why is that?